About | HeinOnline Law Journal Library | HeinOnline Law Journal Library | HeinOnline

LOG IN
LOG IN


Case Citations July 2015 through February 2016 [1] (2015-2016)

handle is hein.ali/resttlph5304 and id is 1 raw text is: TORTS 3D: LIABILITY FOR PHYSICAL AND EMOTIONAL HARM Generally D.N.M.2014. Cit. generally in ftn., cit. generally in case cit. in ftn. In a case in which cancer-treatment facility filed, inter alia, claims for tortious interference with existing and prospective economic advantage against owner of hospitals and insurance companies, this court denied in part defendant's motion for summary judgment, holding that plaintiff alleged sufficient facts to support a tortious- interference claim. In making its decision, the court relied on Restatement Second of Torts, but acknowledged that the New Mexico Supreme Court had previously looked to the Restatement Third of Torts: Liability for Physical and Emotional Harm for guidance with other matters. New Mexico Oncology and Hematology Consultants, Ltd. v. Presbyterian Healthcare Services, 54 F.Supp.3d 1189, 1227. CHAPTER 1. INTENT, RECKLESSNESS, AND NEGLIGENCE: DEFINITIONS § 1. Intent C.A.9 Bkrtcy.App.2015. Cit. in ftn. Creditor brought an adversary proceeding against Chapter 7 debtors, seeking a determination of nondischargeability with regard to a judgment it obtained against debtors in California state court for breach of fiduciary duty and fraud. The bankruptcy court granted in part creditor's motion for summary judgment, relying on the preclusive effect of the judgment's award of punitive damages to find that the judgment debt was nondischargeable on grounds of willful and malicious injury. Vacating and remanding, this court held that the judgment did not satisfy the element of willful injury. The court reasoned that a punitive-damages award under California law could be based on acts done in conscious disregard of another's rights or safety, which was the equivalent of reckless conduct under the Restatement Third of Torts: Liability for Physical and Emotional Harm and was therefore insufficient to satisfy the willfulness requirement. In re Plyam, 530 B.R. 456, 464, 466. § 2. Recklessness C.A.9 Bkrtcy.App.2015. Cit. in ftn. Creditor brought an adversary proceeding against Chapter 7 debtors, seeking a determination of nondischargeability with regard to a judgment it obtained against debtors in California state court for breach of fiduciary duty and fraud. The bankruptcy court granted in part creditor's motion for summary judgment, relying on the preclusive effect of the judgment's award of punitive damages to find that the judgment debt was nondischargeable on grounds of willful and malicious injury. Vacating and remanding, this court held that the judgment did not satisfy the element of willful injury. The court reasoned that a punitive-damages award under California law could be based on acts done in conscious disregard of another's rights or safety, which was the equivalent of reckless _eALmlim For earlier citations, see the Appendices, Supplements, or Pocket Parts, if any, that correspond to the subject matter under examination.